InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Texas Issues Licensing Guidance For Virtual Currency Firms
On April 3, the Texas Department of Banking issued a supervisory memorandum on the regulatory treatment of virtual currencies under the Texas Money Services Act. The memorandum states that money transmission licensing determinations regarding transactions with decentralized virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, referred to by the Banking Department as cryptocurrencies, turn on whether cryptocurrencies should be considered "money or monetary value" under the Money Services Act. The memorandum concludes that cryptocurrencies currently cannot be considered “money or monetary value” because they are not currencies as that word is defined in the Money Services Act, and a unit of cryptocurrency is not a claim under the Act. However, when a cryptocurrency transaction includes sovereign currency, it may constitute money transmission depending on how the sovereign currency is handled. The memorandum provides examples of common types of transactions involving cryptocurrencies and whether they would constitute money transmission subject to state licensing requirements. For example, the Department states that exchanging cryptocurrency for sovereign currency through a third party exchanger is generally money transmission, and that exchange of cryptocurrency for sovereign currency through an automated machine is usually but not always money transmission. The Department advises that cryptocurrency businesses conducting money transmission must comply with state licensing requirements. The Department further advises that (i) a money transmitter that conducts virtual currency transactions is subject to a $500,000 minimum net worth requirement; (ii) a license holder may not include virtual currency assets in calculations for its permissible investments; and (iii) license applicants who handle virtual currencies in the course of their money transmission activities must submit a current third party security audit of their relevant computer systems.
FTC Announces International Privacy Initiatives
On March 6, the FTC released a memorandum of understanding (MOU) it signed with the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is designed to strengthen the agencies’ privacy enforcement partnership. The FTC stated that over the last several years it has worked with the ICO on numerous investigations and international initiatives to increase global privacy cooperation. The MOU establishes a formal framework for the agencies to provide mutual assistance and exchange of information for the purpose of investigating, enforcing, and/or securing compliance with certain privacy violations. The FTC also announced a joint project with the European Union (EU) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies to map together the requirements for APEC Cross Border Privacy Rules and EU Binding Corporate Rules, which is designed to provide a practical reference tool for companies that seek “double certification” under the APEC and EU systems, and shows the substantial overlap between the two.
SWIFT Announces Development Of New KYC Compliance Registry
On March 4, SWIFT, the bank member-owned cooperative based in Belgium, announced that it signed a Memorandum of Understanding with six of its major member banks to develop a central utility for the collection and distribution of standard information required by banks as part of their know your customer (KYC) due diligence processes. The KYC registry is intended to help banks manage KYC compliance challenges and reduce associated costs by providing bank users centralized access to details on their counterparties, while allowing participating banks to retain ownership of their own information and maintain control over which other institutions can view their data. SWIFT states that an initial working group will establish processes for providing information to the registry and documentation necessary to fulfill KYC requirements across multiple jurisdictions. The group expects more banks to join in the coming months.
FinCEN Outlines BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses
On February 14, FinCEN issued guidance to clarify BSA expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses in states that have legalized certain marijuana-related activity. The guidance was issued in coordination with the DOJ, which provided updated guidance to all U.S. Attorneys. The FinCEN guidance reiterates the general principle that the decision to open, close, or refuse any particular account or relationship should be made by each financial institution based on its particular business objectives, an evaluation of the risks associated with offering a particular product or service, its ability to conduct thorough customer due diligence, and its capacity to manage those risks effectively. The guidance details the necessary elements of a customer due diligence program, including consideration of whether a marijuana-related business implicates one of the priorities in the DOJ memorandum or violates state law. FinCEN notes that the obligation to file a SAR is unaffected by any state law that legalizes marijuana-related activity and restates the SAR triggers. The guidance identifies the types of SARs applicable to marijuana-related businesses and describes the conditions under which each type should be filed.
New York AG Announces Mortgage Servicing Enforcement Actions
On October 2, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (NY AG) announced actions to address alleged failures by two servicers to comply with certain of the 304 servicing standards established by the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. In May, the NY AG threatened to sue both servicers based on borrower complaints that the servicers were not fulfilling their settlement obligations. The NY AG now has initiated proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement against one of the banks, alleging numerous servicing deficiencies. In exchange for the NY AG suspending planned legal action against the second servicer, that servicer entered an agreement pursuant to which it is required to, among other things, (i) designate staff with decision-making authority to every housing counseling and legal services agency within the NY AG’s Homeowner Protection Program, (ii) revise the letters it uses to request from borrowers missing documents or information needed to complete a loan modification, (iii) halt the sale of mortgage servicing rights to third parties on New York mortgages when borrowers are already in negotiations for a loan modification or are making trial payments on a loan modification, and (iv) allow borrowers' attorneys permission to negotiate loan modifications directly with bank staff, as opposed to the bank's outside foreclosure lawyers.
Federal District Court Grants FTC Request, Halts Online Payday Operation
On August 29, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered an online payday loan operation to cease business activities and freeze assets in response to a complaint and memorandum filed by the FTC on August 27. Federal Trade Commission v. Caprice Marketing, LLC, No. 13-cv-6072 (N. Dist. Ill. Aug. 29, 2013). The FTC alleges that the defendants obtained sensitive personal and financial information from consumers by falsely representing that such information would be used to match consumers with payday lenders but instead used the information to make unauthorized withdrawals from consumer accounts.
Banking, Housing Regulators Release Revised Credit Risk Retention/QRM Rule
On August 28, the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FHFA, SEC, and HUD released a revised rule to implement the credit risk retention requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, including provisions defining “qualified residential mortgages” (QRMs). A memorandum prepared by FDIC staff in connection with the re-proposal highlights certain substantial changes from the rule as originally proposed, including, among others: (i) generally defining a QRM as a mortgage meeting the requirements for a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB; (ii) calculating the 5% risk retention requirement for non-QRM mortgages and other non-exempt assets based on fair value (rather than par value) of the securitization transaction; (iii) eliminating the premium capture cash reserve account requirements; (iv) permitting the sale and hedging of required risk retention after specified time periods; (v) permitting a sponsor to hold any combination of vertical and horizontal first-loss interests that together represent 5% of the fair value of a securitization; (vi) providing that commercial, commercial real estate and automobile loans satisfying underwriting requirements for exemption from risk retention could be blended in asset pools with non-qualifying loans of the same asset class and remain eligible for reduced risk retention; and (vii) adding a new risk retention option for open market collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), available if the lead arrangers of the loans purchased by the CLO retain the required risk. The agencies also seek comment on an alternative QRM definition called QM-plus, which would encapsulate the core QM requirements but add additional conditions, including a 70% cap on LTV at closing, certain evaluation criteria with respect to credit history, and other product limitations. Comments on the re-proposed rule are due by October 30, 2013.
CFPB Deputy Enforcement Director Discusses Enforcement Priorities
On August 22, C. Hunter Wiggins, the CFPB’s Deputy Enforcement Director for Policy and Strategy, spoke to the D.C. Bar Antitrust and Consumer Law Section at a session titled “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Enforcement Priorities.” A summary of his remarks and responses to certain questions follows.
Mr. Wiggins began his presentation by noting that the Bureau did not want to be a “reactive” agency that devotes its limited resources to “cleaning up” after past crises. Instead, his team, which reports to the CFPB’s Director of Enforcement, Kent Markus, is responsible for evaluating and setting strategic priorities that will allow the Bureau to be a proactive organization.
The Bureau has 150 employees in its Office of Enforcement, seven of whom are on the Policy and Strategy Team. In addition, the Enforcement Office has several “Issue Teams,” which include members of the Policy and Strategy team and other Enforcement staff. Each of the “Issue Teams” is focused on one particular market, such as mortgage servicing or credit cards, and is responsible for identifying problems in those markets that should be prioritized for enforcement action. The criteria used include: (1) the number of consumers potentially impacted by a practice; (2) the period of time that practice has been in place (including whether the practice is ongoing); (3) the amount of harm to consumers; (4) whether the practice targets a vulnerable population; (5) whether consumers have the ability to avoid the practice through shopping; (6) whether the practice results in market distortions (such as a “race to the bottom” or competitive harm to legitimate businesses that do not engage in the practice); and (7) barriers to other solutions (such as the lack of a private right of action).
The Bureau allocates its enforcement resources as follows:
- Core Work (50%): This consists of the priority areas in which the Bureau carries out what were described as its “cop on the beat” responsibilities. Each area generally receives a pro rata amount of resources, but this can vary over time. The areas include: (1) auto finance; (2) consumer loans; (3) credit cards; (4) credit reporting; (5) debt collection; (6) debt relief; (7) deposit accounts; (8) fair lending; (9) money services / prepaid cards; (10) mortgage origination; (11) mortgage servicing; (12) payday loans; and (13) student lending.
- Emphasized Priorities (25-35%): Two to four specific, systemic market problems are chosen. As an example, Mr. Wiggins pointed to the Bureau’s actions regarding credit card add-on products over the past year, which he said were prioritized due to the scope of their impact.
- Emerging and Cross-Cutting Priorities (15%): These are new products, services, or markets, or in some cases new aspects of older products and services that may have an impact on a particular population. As an example, Mr. Wiggins referred to the Bureau’s recent action regarding the use of military allotments to collect payments on auto loans made to servicemembers.
- Tactical Priorities (0-10%): These are activities that are useful to the Bureau’s own long-term institutional development. For example, Mr. Wiggins noted areas where the Bureau has sought out partnerships with other agencies to establish or strengthen enforcement relationships with other regulators or law enforcement agencies. Other possible tactical priorities mentioned included pursuing enforcement matters with a regional focus and increasing the Bureau’s ability to use temporary restraining orders as an enforcement tool.
Question and Answer Session
Mr. Wiggins noted that his responses to questions, which are discussed below, represented his own views and not those of the Bureau.
- RESPA enforcement: Mr. Wiggins was asked if the Bureau was looking at title agents for RESPA compliance. He responded that, in setting priorities, the Bureau focuses on identifying problems, not industries.
- Add-on products: Mr. Wiggins was asked why the Bureau identified credit card add-on products as an “Emphasized Priority” when those products were already receiving significant attention from other regulators. Mr. Wiggins acknowledged the actions of other regulators but said that the Bureau’s review led them to view this as an area where they needed to step in.
- Regulating attorneys: A concern was raised regarding the extent to which the Bureau could regulate the activities of attorneys. Mr. Wiggins responded that, as general matter, the Bureau has no interest in intervening in circumstances where attorneys are merely providing legal advice to clients. However, he noted two Bureau enforcement actions involving potentially problematic attorney conduct: first, a 2012 action against a California law firm allegedly engaged in unfair and deceptive practices related to loan modifications; and second, this week’s suit against a debt-settlement firm that allegedly partnered with attorneys to collect prohibited upfront fees for debt relief services.
- Criminal activity: In response to a question, Mr. Wiggins stated that the Bureau was legally obligated to turn over information regarding suspected criminal activity uncovered during its examinations and investigations to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and that the Bureau has a memorandum of understanding with DOJ for that purpose. However, he emphasized that the CFPB’s examiners and investigators do not look for criminal conduct, such as tax evasion, in the regular course of their duties.
- Employee incentive programs: Mr. Wiggins was asked about the use of employee incentive programs in the area of debt collection. He responded that incentive programs can be problematic to the extent they encourage employees to engage in improper conduct and that the Bureau takes this into account.
Investors Sue to Preempt Locality's Planned Seizure of Mortgages Using Eminent Domain; FHFA Outlines Potential Responses
On August 7, trustees representing the interests of investors in mortgage backed securities filed two separate suits to halt the planned use of eminent domain by the city of Richmond, California to seize a group of mortgages. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. City of Richmond, No. 13-3663 (N.D. Cal., complaint filed Aug. 7, 2013); Bank of NY Mellon v. City of Richmond, No. 13-3664 (N.D. Cal., complaint filed Aug. 7, 2013). The city recently threatened to seize 626 mortgages if the owners and servicers of those debts do not agree to sell the mortgages to the city. The complaints allege that the city is seeking to use its eminent domain power impermissibly to generate profits for private investors. The trustees explain that the city’s plan primarily involves performing loans and would value those loans at steeply discounted prices rather than the loan balance, under the guise of seizing “underwater” mortgages to prevent future defaults and foreclosures. The complaints assert that the vast majority of the loans are not at imminent risk of default and are located outside of the city, and, as such, the seizure plan will violate the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause, Commerce Clause, and Contract Clause, as well as the state’s statutory prohibitions against extraterritorial seizures. The trustees seek a declaration that the eminent domain plan violates the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and other state laws, and an order enjoining the city from implementing the program.
On the same day, the FHFA released a memorandum prepared by its general counsel regarding eminent domain, based in part on public input solicited last year. In a separate statement, the FHFA states that it could: (i) initiate legal challenges to any local or state action that sanctions the use of eminent domain to restructure mortgage loan contracts that affect FHFA’s regulated entities; (ii) act by order or by regulation to direct the regulated entities to limit, restrict or cease business activities within the jurisdiction of any state or local authority employing eminent domain to restructure mortgage loan contracts; or (iii) take such other appropriate actions to respond to market uncertainty or increased costs created by any movement to put in place such programs.
FDIC Announces Agreement with Canadian Counterpart on Cross-Border Bank Resolution
On June 12, the FDIC announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to formalize existing efforts between the two regulators to cooperate on effective resolution planning in the event of the failure of large, complex financial institutions that maintain operations in both countries. The MOU provides a framework for the parties to consult and share resources and information when addressing a bank resolution, and contemplates future coordination on related policy issues.